Back to blog
Does remote work make people happier? Two major studies disagree
remote work wellbeing research

Does remote work make people happier? Two major studies disagree

In August 2026 a study of 7,704 employees was widely reported as showing that fully remote workers have the highest wellbeing. It does show that. Gallup, working from a much larger global sample, reports that fully remote workers have the lowest rate of thriving and the highest rates of loneliness, anger and sadness.

Both are real findings from serious researchers. Neither is wrong. The disagreement is the interesting part, and understanding it tells you more about remote work than either study does on its own.

What the 2026 study actually found

The paper is Rethinking Return-to-Office: The Positive Impact of Remote Work on Well-Being, Connection, and Employee Retention, by Alyssa Lezcano, Stephanie Zajac, Stefanie Johnson and Courtney Holladay, published in Frontiers in Psychology (vol. 17, 2026). It uses a time-lagged design across 7,704 employees at a single large US healthcare organisation: 1,869 remote, 2,099 hybrid, 3,736 onsite. The survey ran in 2023 and turnover was tracked a year later.

The headline result holds up:

Arrangement Wellbeing score
Remote 4.22
Hybrid 4.12
Onsite 3.89

ANOVA and post-hoc tests confirmed the differences were statistically significant.

The other two findings are where the coverage got ahead of the paper. Remote employees did mention positive workplace connection at the highest rate — but the authors state plainly that this result was not significant. And turnover a year later was 7.8% for remote against 8.8% for onsite, a difference the authors also describe as not statistically significant.

So the defensible claim is narrower than "remote workers are happier, more connected and stay longer". It is: remote workers scored higher on one wellbeing measure, and were not measurably worse on connection or retention. That is still a meaningful result — it undercuts the isolation argument that most return-to-office cases rest on — but it is not the same claim.

One more thing worth noticing: the gap between remote and onsite is 0.33 points. With a sample of 7,704, quite small differences clear the bar for statistical significance. Significant does not mean large.

What Gallup found, and why it points the other way

Gallup's State of the Global Workplace (published May 2025, so now over a year old) splits the same population four ways and measures different things:

Arrangement Engaged Thriving Lonely yesterday Stressed yesterday
Exclusively remote 31% 36% 27% 45%
Hybrid 23% 42% 23% 46%
On-site, remote-capable 23% 42% 20% 39%
On-site, not remote-capable 19% 30% — 38%

Fully remote workers are the most engaged group by a wide margin — and the least likely to be thriving in life overall, apart from people who have no choice about it. They also report the most loneliness, the most anger and the most sadness.

Gallup calls this the remote work paradox, and the label is fair. The same people who are most absorbed in their work are the least happy with their lives.

Why both can be true at once

Three things are going on, and none of them require either study to be wrong.

They measure different constructs. "Engagement" is about your relationship with your job. "Thriving" is Gallup's whole-life measure — it asks how your life is going, not how your work is going. The Frontiers study's wellbeing measure sits closer to the work end of that spectrum. It is entirely coherent for remote work to improve your working life and leave your wider life thinner.

They sample different populations. One is a single American healthcare employer, surveyed in 2023. The other is a global workforce across dozens of economies. Remote work in a well-run US health system with established teams is not the same experience as remote work in general.

Selection runs in both directions. People who are thriving socially outside work may be readier to go fully remote; people who are struggling may also self-select into it. Neither study can separate the arrangement from the people who chose it. That is the core limitation of all observational work here, and it is why the next section matters.

The one study that isn't observational

Almost everything written about remote work and wellbeing compares people who chose different arrangements. One study didn't.

Nicholas Bloom, Ruobing Han and James Liang ran a six-month randomised controlled trial at Trip.com, published in Nature in June 2024. They assigned 1,612 employees to hybrid — two days at home — or full office attendance, randomised by whether their birthday fell on an odd or even day. Randomisation removes the self-selection problem entirely.

  • Quit rates fell by roughly a third: 4.8% against 7.2%
  • Job satisfaction rose from 7.84 to 8.19 out of 10
  • Performance grades, promotion rates and engineers' code output were unchanged
  • The effect on quitting was strongest for non-managers, women, and people with long commutes
  • Managers' own estimates of the productivity impact moved from −2.6% before the trial to +1.0% after

It is one company, in one country, staffed largely by graduate professionals, and it tested hybrid rather than fully remote. But it is the strongest causal evidence available, and it lands on hybrid.

What to do with this

If you are choosing an arrangement: the evidence supports remote work being good for your working life and ambiguous for the rest of it. The risk is not productivity, and it is probably not your relationship with your employer — it is the social infrastructure that an office supplies by accident. If you go fully remote, you have to build that deliberately. Stefanie Johnson, one of the study's authors, put the nuance well: remote works better once you already know people. Early-career and newly-hired are the cases where it is hardest.

If you are hiring: hybrid is the only arrangement with randomised evidence behind it, and that evidence says it cuts attrition by a third at no cost to output. If you are weighing a return-to-office mandate against the retention risk, that is the number to argue with. Note too that Gallup finds six in ten exclusively-remote employees would be extremely likely to look elsewhere if flexibility were withdrawn — which is a live retention cost, not a hypothetical one.

If you are reading the next study: check whether it measures work satisfaction or life satisfaction before you believe the headline. Most of the apparent contradiction in this literature dissolves once you separate the two.

Common questions

Are remote workers happier than office workers?

At work, generally yes — they score higher on engagement and job-related wellbeing. On overall life satisfaction the evidence points the other way, with Gallup recording lower thriving and more loneliness among fully remote workers.

Does remote work cause loneliness?

No study here shows cause. Gallup finds fully remote workers report more loneliness (27% versus 20% on-site), but people choose their arrangements, so the direction of the relationship is unresolved.

Is hybrid better than fully remote?

On whole-life measures, hybrid scores better than fully remote in Gallup's data and it is the only arrangement supported by a randomised trial. On work-specific wellbeing, fully remote scores highest.

Browse what is actually live: fractional roles · part-time remote · business & operations · all remote and hybrid jobs

Sources

Back to blog